Personally, I think you're giving Rachael Carlson too much credit. Yes she wrote the book, but there were other factors operating as well. Controlling pockets of exposed stagnant water is generally more effective at stopping mosquitoes than DDT. Additionally, it was beginning to reach a point of diminishing returns as "bugs" gained Resistance to it.
Maybe after 40 - 50 years it would be good to bring it out and use it again....especially in those areas of the world where it hasn't been previously used. But DDT like all pesticides that do not biodegrade - accumulate up the food chain toward top predators. That was the reason we stopped using it, eagle's (I believe) were breaking the eggs of their young by sitting on them when incubating.
The WHO claims DDT is the least expensive and most effective pesticide. If the UN funds this it will cost them very little money as opposed to teaching them to remove stagnant water and developing decent drinking water systems. Developing countries need a chemical assault on their land that works it's way into it's food supply like they need a new disease.
The recommended and most common method of applying DDT is now directly on/in the dwellings where humans live. Malaria is indeed a vicious killer and needs to be addressed. Apparently DDT is the most effective pesticide for it, and is relatively cheap, hence developing African countries have campaigned hard to get it available again.
However. the problems with DDT have not been refuted from what I read elsewhere. It DOES cause harm to bird's wellbeing, and to claim that, because it is being reinstuted in developing countries, that the research in the 70s was false, is irresponsible and wrong. What has come to play here is that new application methods, coupled with a very real increase in the killer human disease malaria, has made it practicle to use in some locales.
When applied to policies on DDT, for example, this framework leads to the conclusion that a global ban on DDT is unjustified. DDT was an important factor in the virtual extermination of malaria in several developed countries including the United States, and it was spectacularly successful in developing countries such as India and Sri Lanka. But it was a victim of its own success. No longer fearful of malaria, industrialized nations prohibited DDT’s manufacture and use because of its adverse effects on birds of prey — and fears of its potential but unverified long-term impacts on human health. However, DDT is still the most cost-effective insecticide available for use against many mosquitoes that spread malaria, which mostly affects developing countries. DDT is relatively inexpensive and much more effective than the next best alternative insecticide.
Ethically, since the risk of death to humans trumps the health threats posed to non-human animals, including raptors,
continued use of DDT in the developing world is justified. This is especially true if DDT is used in a way that limits the exposure of wildlife. Today, DDT is applied only to walls and indoor furnishings, rather than being sprayed on wetlands, fields and yards as it was in the past.
(bold was added by me)
Uncontrollled spraying of entire fields and swamps is NOT the way it is being used now, unlike when it was found to be hazardous to raptors. Hey, majestic Bald Eagles don't go to Africa anyway, so if they want to kill their own raptors, let them. then they can deal with the snakes and dead vermin that their raptors now keep in control.
By the way, I also found this:
Carson had made it clear she was not advocating the banning or complete withdrawal of helpful pesticides, but was instead encouraging responsible and carefully managed use, with an awareness of the chemicals' impact on the entire ecosystem. However, some critics asserted that she was calling for the elimination of all pesticides, despite the fact that Silent Spring was positively reviewed by many outside of the academic field such as agricultural science and chemical science, and it became a runaway best seller both in the USA and overseas.
So to characterize this pioneer in the quest for environmental concern as being "so very wrong", and responsible for the deaths of so many malaria victims (as your site infers), is also "wrong". Shoot, the woman died 40 years ago, where has all the new science taken us?
~HAP (who longs for the easier and more compassionate, loving times of the 60s)
"Even at the time, Carson's claims that DDT was responsible for everything from the thinning of eggshells to cancer in humans looked shaky. By the mid-1980s they had been utterly discredited. Yet by then Carson's claims had achieved the status of holy writ among environmentalists - and among right-on officials in government ministries. Third World nations were threatened with trade sanctions if they even suggested using DDT in fields or homes. ...
In years to come, the ban on DDT will be seen for what it is: a scandalous example of half-baked ecological concerns being put above the needs of humans. That realisation will come too late for the tens of millions who paid for this folly with their lives."
This is what I have read previously also ... I'll see what else I can find on that.
One point was that a lot of policy in the 60's (and ever since?) is made based on placating hysterical movements. It seems like an interesting thing to discuss.
However. the problems with DDT have not been refuted from what I read elsewhere. It DOES cause harm to bird's wellbeing, and to claim that, because it is being reinstuted in developing countries, that the research in the 70s was false, is irresponsible and wrong.
So are you irresponsible to say it was true science if indeed it was wrong? LOL JunkScience.com is specific on this. The rest of that article is very good as well.
Carson wrote “Dr. [James] DeWitt's now classic experiments [show] that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.”
"DeWitt actually reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT.
Carson predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit “practically 100 percent” of the human population. This prediction hasn’t materialized, no doubt because it was based on a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle-aged rainbow trout — later attributed to aflatoxin. There is no credible evidence that DDT poses a cancer risk, whatsoever.
As wrong as Carson was, the Environmental Protection Agency’s action against DDT — the precedent for next week’s efforts to ban the chemical — was worse. "
So it seems Carson was the irresponsible one, but she did sell a lot of books. Her later statement you quoted clarified nothing. And from your site ... "environmental advocates of the global DDT ban contend that since DDT is not proven to be entirely safe, it should be banned, thus implicitly favoring wildlife over human life without having to explicitly state their preference". Where is the love and compassion?
So to characterize this pioneer in the quest for environmental concern as being "so very wrong", and responsible for the deaths of so many malaria victims (as your site infers), is also "wrong". Shoot, the woman died 40 years ago, where has all the new science taken us?
You're giving Carson credit for the new science since that? Good science and true environmentalism makes good sense. But much of today's movement is not based on science. This is from that junkscience site from Decmber, 2000.
The World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and 250 other environmental groups will advocate the insecticide DDT be banned at next week’s United Nations Environment Programme meeting in Johannesburg. ....
The WWF et al. often exploit “the children” as a stalking horse for their dubious agenda. Their effort to ban DDT is a chilling reminder of this cynicism.
I remember a much better book regarding environmental matters that was written around that time. It was called Trashing the Planet, but I don't know if it's still around and most of the particulars have left me now.
I did a quick scan on the most recent international information on the kill level of DDT. Its in terms of rats and rabbits it takes 7/100's of an ounce to kill either one, it is a toxic substance, lets not make any mistake about that. Science says it is toxic and it remains that way for a long while in the soil and can be uptaked by plants. Science also shows insects develop resistance to it and we develop a balance of sorts by storing it in our fatty tissues and then excreteing the rest. Maybe an organiochloride is good to add to your daily uptake of vitamins, I don't know.
Our understanding of the world has changed alot since we were WOW's. Things we took for granted we refute today, it is a process of growing up and recognising the issues that face us today have changed since we were kids.When Rachal wrote Silent Spring she represented the tip of the iceburg of a silenced undercurrent of American's concerned with the use of chemicals and a bunch of other stuff and effects they could have on us and the world around us.
I think to understand what Rachal was driving at you need to read all of her books and understand that it was the 1920's when she began her studies at Chatham College and graduated Magna Cum Laude. She earned her Masters in Zoology and Genetics at Johns Hopkins University.
In terms of her scientific approach to the subject it looks to me like she applied what was considered standard research and study practices at the time and extarpoated ideas and pursued their limitations. In terms of her thinking, I think she simply reworded her thoughts in a document anyone could understand called Silent Spring- with the main thesis being, not all chemistry leads to better living.
My personal opinion is that Africa is faced with many many problems primary of which are endemic internal corruption and international indifference. Until those problems are addressed the other issues are just that issues.
It was called Trashing the Planet, but I don't know if it's still around and most of the particulars have left me now.
Hey krysilis ... I never heard of that one, but the oldest I saw by that title was from 1990 I think. I imagine a lot of the info out then was good in perhaps turning the market toward products that are safer for us and the environment But I sense that many times public is swayed by sensationalism, and often ends up doing harm.
My personal opinion is that Africa is faced with many many problems primary of which are endemic internal corruption and international indifference. Until those problems are addressed the other issues are just that issues.
Those problems are probably only worsened by widespread malaria.
How many Africans might be helped by an international effort to provide basic medical servies like clean drining water and syringes, condoms and education to help them solve their own problems rather than us stepping in as the good parent and solving it for them?
It worked in Europe and the US, why shoudn't it work here?
My Mom's church has a fund for putting in wells in Africa. I guess Evan knows a lot about the situation there. From another thread he said
"Our longer lives aren't due to how we eat but on interventive medical care, neonatal care and fewer accidents.
Every time I go to Africa I'm amazed out how healthy, vital & strong the populace is. Their low life expectancy is due to a high death rate at birth, accidents & lack of medical care when the big diseases hit. By comparison, us Americans are weak, pallid, foggy and tired. I always feel better after eating their food for a few weeks."
on a seperate "note"
Hey farmer farmer
Put away that DDT now
Give me spots on my apples
But leave me the birds and the bees
Please!
There is a lot better science now on dealing with erosion and chemicals getting into groundwater ... maybe some was helped along by people that were motivated by the likes of Joni Mitchell, then went on through school to get it right. But the "environmental" groups that fight against the use of DDT in Africa (as noted in my earlier post) seem to be where sensationalism trumps science and human life is forfeited. It sometimes seems some hard core "greens" answer to perceived overpopulation is to let large masses of people die from these diseases. I have much more faith in my local USDA guy than Greenpeace or Sierra Club.
Recommended Posts
krys
Personally, I think you're giving Rachael Carlson too much credit. Yes she wrote the book, but there were other factors operating as well. Controlling pockets of exposed stagnant water is generally more effective at stopping mosquitoes than DDT. Additionally, it was beginning to reach a point of diminishing returns as "bugs" gained Resistance to it.
Maybe after 40 - 50 years it would be good to bring it out and use it again....especially in those areas of the world where it hasn't been previously used. But DDT like all pesticides that do not biodegrade - accumulate up the food chain toward top predators. That was the reason we stopped using it, eagle's (I believe) were breaking the eggs of their young by sitting on them when incubating.
The WHO claims DDT is the least expensive and most effective pesticide. If the UN funds this it will cost them very little money as opposed to teaching them to remove stagnant water and developing decent drinking water systems. Developing countries need a chemical assault on their land that works it's way into it's food supply like they need a new disease.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
The recommended and most common method of applying DDT is now directly on/in the dwellings where humans live. Malaria is indeed a vicious killer and needs to be addressed. Apparently DDT is the most effective pesticide for it, and is relatively cheap, hence developing African countries have campaigned hard to get it available again.
However. the problems with DDT have not been refuted from what I read elsewhere. It DOES cause harm to bird's wellbeing, and to claim that, because it is being reinstuted in developing countries, that the research in the 70s was false, is irresponsible and wrong. What has come to play here is that new application methods, coupled with a very real increase in the killer human disease malaria, has made it practicle to use in some locales.
From http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba485/
(bold was added by me)
Uncontrollled spraying of entire fields and swamps is NOT the way it is being used now, unlike when it was found to be hazardous to raptors. Hey, majestic Bald Eagles don't go to Africa anyway, so if they want to kill their own raptors, let them. then they can deal with the snakes and dead vermin that their raptors now keep in control.
By the way, I also found this:
So to characterize this pioneer in the quest for environmental concern as being "so very wrong", and responsible for the deaths of so many malaria victims (as your site infers), is also "wrong". Shoot, the woman died 40 years ago, where has all the new science taken us?
~HAP (who longs for the easier and more compassionate, loving times of the 60s)
Edited by HAPe4meLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
From The First Post (not my first post)
"Even at the time, Carson's claims that DDT was responsible for everything from the thinning of eggshells to cancer in humans looked shaky. By the mid-1980s they had been utterly discredited. Yet by then Carson's claims had achieved the status of holy writ among environmentalists - and among right-on officials in government ministries. Third World nations were threatened with trade sanctions if they even suggested using DDT in fields or homes. ...
In years to come, the ban on DDT will be seen for what it is: a scandalous example of half-baked ecological concerns being put above the needs of humans. That realisation will come too late for the tens of millions who paid for this folly with their lives."
This is what I have read previously also ... I'll see what else I can find on that.
One point was that a lot of policy in the 60's (and ever since?) is made based on placating hysterical movements. It seems like an interesting thing to discuss.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Carson wrote “Dr. [James] DeWitt's now classic experiments [show] that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.”
"DeWitt actually reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT.
Carson predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit “practically 100 percent” of the human population. This prediction hasn’t materialized, no doubt because it was based on a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle-aged rainbow trout — later attributed to aflatoxin. There is no credible evidence that DDT poses a cancer risk, whatsoever.
As wrong as Carson was, the Environmental Protection Agency’s action against DDT — the precedent for next week’s efforts to ban the chemical — was worse. "
So it seems Carson was the irresponsible one, but she did sell a lot of books. Her later statement you quoted clarified nothing. And from your site ... "environmental advocates of the global DDT ban contend that since DDT is not proven to be entirely safe, it should be banned, thus implicitly favoring wildlife over human life without having to explicitly state their preference". Where is the love and compassion?
You're giving Carson credit for the new science since that? Good science and true environmentalism makes good sense. But much of today's movement is not based on science. This is from that junkscience site from Decmber, 2000.The World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and 250 other environmental groups will advocate the insecticide DDT be banned at next week’s United Nations Environment Programme meeting in Johannesburg. ....
The WWF et al. often exploit “the children” as a stalking horse for their dubious agenda. Their effort to ban DDT is a chilling reminder of this cynicism.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I remember a much better book regarding environmental matters that was written around that time. It was called Trashing the Planet, but I don't know if it's still around and most of the particulars have left me now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
I did a quick scan on the most recent international information on the kill level of DDT. Its in terms of rats and rabbits it takes 7/100's of an ounce to kill either one, it is a toxic substance, lets not make any mistake about that. Science says it is toxic and it remains that way for a long while in the soil and can be uptaked by plants. Science also shows insects develop resistance to it and we develop a balance of sorts by storing it in our fatty tissues and then excreteing the rest. Maybe an organiochloride is good to add to your daily uptake of vitamins, I don't know.
Our understanding of the world has changed alot since we were WOW's. Things we took for granted we refute today, it is a process of growing up and recognising the issues that face us today have changed since we were kids.When Rachal wrote Silent Spring she represented the tip of the iceburg of a silenced undercurrent of American's concerned with the use of chemicals and a bunch of other stuff and effects they could have on us and the world around us.
I think to understand what Rachal was driving at you need to read all of her books and understand that it was the 1920's when she began her studies at Chatham College and graduated Magna Cum Laude. She earned her Masters in Zoology and Genetics at Johns Hopkins University.
In terms of her scientific approach to the subject it looks to me like she applied what was considered standard research and study practices at the time and extarpoated ideas and pursued their limitations. In terms of her thinking, I think she simply reworded her thoughts in a document anyone could understand called Silent Spring- with the main thesis being, not all chemistry leads to better living.
My personal opinion is that Africa is faced with many many problems primary of which are endemic internal corruption and international indifference. Until those problems are addressed the other issues are just that issues.
Edited by herbiejuanLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Hah, I agree more than you would think with THAT comment! it can be applied to many subjects.
HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
How many are suffering from AIDS
How many are suffering from Malaria?
How many Africans might be helped by an international effort to provide basic medical servies like clean drining water and syringes, condoms and education to help them solve their own problems rather than us stepping in as the good parent and solving it for them?
It worked in Europe and the US, why shoudn't it work here?
Edited by herbiejuanLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
My Mom's church has a fund for putting in wells in Africa. I guess Evan knows a lot about the situation there. From another thread he said
"Our longer lives aren't due to how we eat but on interventive medical care, neonatal care and fewer accidents.
Every time I go to Africa I'm amazed out how healthy, vital & strong the populace is. Their low life expectancy is due to a high death rate at birth, accidents & lack of medical care when the big diseases hit. By comparison, us Americans are weak, pallid, foggy and tired. I always feel better after eating their food for a few weeks."
on a seperate "note"
Hey farmer farmer
Put away that DDT now
Give me spots on my apples
But leave me the birds and the bees
Please!
There is a lot better science now on dealing with erosion and chemicals getting into groundwater ... maybe some was helped along by people that were motivated by the likes of Joni Mitchell, then went on through school to get it right. But the "environmental" groups that fight against the use of DDT in Africa (as noted in my earlier post) seem to be where sensationalism trumps science and human life is forfeited. It sometimes seems some hard core "greens" answer to perceived overpopulation is to let large masses of people die from these diseases. I have much more faith in my local USDA guy than Greenpeace or Sierra Club.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.